Don Bradman most over rated player in the cricketing history?

[mishra]

So MCC from Eng' date=' a rival of Australia, proclaimed Bradman, an Australian, as a hero .... what a sham :hitler:[/quote'] Actually i was surprised to see similar instance again. farnes got him out in first two tests. They dropped him for the rest of that series. How dare you Scot!!!!

[zen]

Actually i was surprised to see similar instance again. farnes got him out in first two tests. They dropped him for the rest of that series. How dare you Scot!!!!

Ok, so Eng was allowing Bradman (an aussie) to score runs and make him a hero .... may be that was their priority so some 60 years later no one can proclaim SRT as the greatest :dontknow:

[Naaz-neesh]

I think a better analysis would be why can't India produce quality fast bowlers in respectable quantity despite a huge increase in cricket playing population If Ind could produce Md Nissar and Amar Singh during Bradman's time, Kapil Dev in the 70s, Srinath in the 90s, then surlely we can produce a bunch of such quality bowlers with the rise in cricket playing population. what seems to have gone wrong? I mean the population is increasing so it should throw up a few quicks per your grand theory, no? Also wondering, how a tiny nation like Netherlands manages to reach WC finals 3 times in football but countries with much larger population haven't been able to to so And why BD with a larger population than countries like Australia and NZ, doesn't manage to be that competitive with them in cricket? :hmmmm:

more than anything, it comes down to management of youth players (talented, late bloomers, AND the untalented ones) and access to proper resources. in the asian countries, especially here in pakistan, poper cricket facilities for young children (starting from 10 years old) is only available to the privilieged at private schools. whilst rest of the unfotunate have to learn their trade playing with tape ball and other imitations, this might produce one unsual talent who gets picked by centre of excellences or first class teams, but most often on contrary negates the development of any potential talent. so many of our successful cricketers have come through private academies (not funded by PCB), which shoots down myth foreign commentators always promote of "passion and from alleyways of rawalpindi". in football, as far i know, the likes of holland and spain have the world's best youth facilities where money is not a barrier, ajax of holland and the world famous barcelona are always oozing with young talent, with playes emerging every season, where they offer the best facilties for coaching, schooling, upbrining, and safety net if they fail. the asian countries could really dominant cricket, if the administrators just put a little tought behind grass-root management strategy of youngsters, and this includes bangladesh. from a pakistani's point of view, for all our passion we have some of the most rubbish facilities for cricket at public level...lack of parks, equipment, coaching, guidance. tape ball vs cork ball is not a youth policy it is a tragedy

[zen]

more than anything, it comes down to management of youth players (talented, late bloomers, AND the untalented ones) and access to proper resources. in the asian countries, especially here in pakistan, poper cricket facilities for young children (starting from 10 years old) is only available to the privilieged at private schools. whilst rest of the unfotunate have to learn their trade playing with tape ball and other imitations, this might produce one unsual talent who gets picked by centre of excellences or first class teams, but most often on contrary negates the development of any potential talent. so many of our successful cricketers have come through private academies (not funded by PCB), which shoots down myth foreign commentators always promote of "passion and from alleyways of rawalpindi". in football, as far i know, the likes of holland and spain have the world's best youth facilities where money is not a barrier, ajax of holland and the world famous barcelona are always oozing with young talent, with playes emerging every season, where they offer the best facilties for coaching, schooling, upbrining, and safety net if they fail. the asian countries could really dominant cricket, if the administrators just put a little tought behind grass-root management strategy of youngsters, and this includes bangladesh. from a pakistani's point of view, for all our passion we have some of the most rubbish facilities for cricket at public level...lack of parks, equipment, coaching, guidance. tape ball vs cork ball is not a youth policy it is a tragedy

Absolutely, to produce quality you need good facilities and/or sporting culture .... Sometimes if you have a good sporting culture, you can produce good players like Brazil in football for example where kids grow up playing football in parks and beaches. The carribean had a great cricketing culture too The sub continent neither has enough facilities (play grounds per 1000 people for example) nor a sporting culture (mostly Bollywood type culture), which is why we struggle in sports generally My point for asking that question was that quality is not directly proportional to quantity. Even though fewer players played cricket in 30s, it doesn't mean that the environment was less competitive or they were not capable enough to produce quality cricket

[The Outsider]

MIsharaji app ke itne mahaan desh ne jiska size aur jansankhya itni zyaada hai, abhi tak ek chhote se tapu, Barbados, jiski jansankya 3 lakh aur area 300 square kilometer hai, utne bhi mahaan kirketers kyon nahin nikale?

[Sachinism]

Mishraji :facepalm:

[mishra]

Buysy for two day...... Will be back

[mishra]

Ok' date=' so Eng was allowing Bradman (an aussie) to score runs and make him a hero .... may be that was their priority so some 60 years later no one can proclaim SRT as the greatest :dontknow:[/quote'] Rett couldnt you think of something along the lines of common sense like, Farnes could have been been injured/sick after second test...

[zen]

Rett couldnt you think of something along the lines of common sense like' date=' Farnes could have been been injured/sick after second test...[/quote'] I am merely going by your expert opinion (see below) .... are you forgetting to what it is being responded to :dontknow:

[mishra]

^ :hatsoff: :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[zen]

Buysy for two day...... Will be back

^ :hatsoff: :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

:P

[mishra]

Chk the beloow legend of similar capacity E0iXl42UPFE

[mishra]

I was really surprised at the lack of common sense when someone compares 500-1000 elite cricket enthusiats (Not Cricketers) to that population of Holland :(( .... P(1)= X truth hence if P(K) = X truth P (K+1)= X truth Hence P(infinity)= X truth {or atleast over 1.5 billion} Problem with that interpretation of Bradman lover is K should be considered to be any number , And not a small subset where integer between 1-10,000. The anomaly resulting in truth is because number is subset. If someone is claiming that Skill,Training,Physical strength, stamina, commitment, professionalism,spotting is similar to that of modern day standard is just complete crap. I am not saying that Bradman wouldnt have played as professional cricketer in modern era. What I am trying to say is "lack of above qualities in 1930s cricket isnt Bradmans fault" can not be used as EXCUSE to compare his records witjh professional cricket. So Statement that Bradman was best bat ever (even when made by International cricketers) is just either ignorance or a lie or ganging up or just utter crap. Undoubtebly He is best batsman of 1930s. He did won Ashes several times.:winky: I have already admitted CA/MCC needed a hero to develop cricket in 30s and post world war era. Should that give me right to be greatest batsman? I seriously doubt it

[goose]

At the risk of igniting a tired debate, here's a post from an old BBC blog i think is worth a read.... 49. At 17:05 31st Mar 2011, Beziers72 wrote: Ben, there is a decent argument for claiming that Tendulkar is better than Bradman. This is put forward by the great science writer Stephen Jay Gould (using baseball statistics as an example as to why no one could possibly beat Ty Cobb's average in the modern era) Basicially, although there were great bowlers in the era, the overall standard of bowler and fielder has improved over time with modern diet, training and selection techniques. So although individuals through talent and practice would have excelled in any era they were playing against inferior opposition for the most part and milked them accordingly. In the words of Stephen Jay Gould (re. baseball) Swap the names Bradman for Cobb and Gwynn for Tendulkar? "The overall batting average has been about .260 throughout the history of baseball. But the variation around that average has shrunk. It's at least plausible that variation declines because play improves. A batting average is a comparison between hitting and pitching. So if everybody's improving, as long as they improve at the same rate, the batting average will remain constant. But it gets to the point where everyone is so good that there's just not much variation anymore. Hitting .400 in baseball is a good example because there's a "right wall," if you will, of human limits. Given how our muscles work, there's just so much that the human body can do. (ie. A human will never be able to sprint as fast as a cheetah) There will always be a few individuals who, by dint of genetic gifts and obsessive commitment and training, will stand close to that right wall. That's where Ty Cobb was in 1911 and where Tony Gwynn is today. But there is this limiting wall. What has happened in baseball is that all aspects of play have improved enormously. Back in 1911, average play was so far inferior to where Ty Cobb was that his batting average could be measured as .420. Today, Tony Gwynn is just as good, maybe even closer to the wall than Cobb was. But the average player has improved so much that Gwynn's performance -- equal to or better than Cobb's -- is not measured as high.

[velu]

If Bradman is playing in this era he won't be averaging 99.. But if our generation cricketers were playing in dons era , they won't be averaging 99.. Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4

[India-KXIP fan]

If Bradman is playing in this era he won't be averaging 99.. But if our generation cricketers were playing in dons era , they won't be averaging 99.. Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4

This! Bradman today = 17 average, Tendulkar in Bradman era = 180 average. But you can't compare different era's. You can't compare Usain Bolt with the greatest sprinter of another era. In every sport really the newer generation is better than previous. Different era's just shouldn't be compared. If you compare Bradman with SRT, obviously SRT is much better but Bradman was best in his era, should be left at that.